Skyscript Astrology Forum

I think what Phil was asking is that if the zodiac begins with a sign other than Aries, what happens to the number symbolism attached to each sign? For example, traditionally Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, and so first or One.

The Sun, the most important of the astrological bodies we use, is exalted in Aries. Sidereal Aries [tropical Taurus] as a sign is firmly rooted and often immovable as Isabel Pagan noted in her book. This is masculine symbolism. Number symbolism strikes at the very heart of astrology, and isn't a topic that can be covered easily or quickly. We really have to begin with some basic questions.

Therese wrote:

I think what Phil was asking is that if the zodiac begins with a sign other than Aries, what happens to the number symbolism attached to each sign? For example, traditionally Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, and so first or One.

The Sun, the most important of the astrological bodies we use, is exalted in Aries.

You see, there are many ways you can look at things. And there are many different systems that have validity to them.

For example, in ancient Greek star catalogues, Leo is the first constellation. This constellation is marked by prominent Regulus which stands at a 90? angle to the Aldebaran-Antares axis and was himself one of the four "pillar stars" of the ancients.

If you are looking for an alternative place for the beginning of the zodiac, Leo could be your first choice also regarding the order of the traditional rulership scheme. The number 1 certainly behoves the Sun!

But again, this is merely one level of symbolical correspondence.

Number symbolism strikes at the very heart of astrology

I couldn't agree more with you!

Michael

Hello Michael
Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion too. Regulus was definiteley a marker, as it's name implies and the leader of the four "royal" cornerstone stars (with Antares, Fomalhaut and Alebaran), which later came to mark the four "fixed"signs. One also feels that the first segment should be ruled by the Sun. 0? Leo is also the start of one the three (out of 27) Indian nakshatra which conventionally start at 0? of one of the 12 signs (the others are Aries and Sagittarius). (Though rulership of Magha, the 0? Leo nakshatra, is conventionally given to Ketu, the south node, while Krittika/Peiades, which straddles 0? Taurus, is ruled by the Sun, and was definitely considered the first of the series in the past - so the plot thickens!)
But the 0 Leo / 0 Magha overlay might suggest that the fitting of the 27 nakshatra into the 12 signs, which has been contested as an awkward compromise, might be appropriate - not firstly because of the perfect fit in Aries, but rather that in Leo.
It's also interesting to note that a 9th harmonic starting at Taurus (which is what Fagan proposed with his novien) also makes 0? Leo in natal fall at 0? Leo in the H9. So perhaps all harmonics "should" be calculated from Leo...
Graham

Graham wrote:

Hello Michael
Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion too.

Hello Graham
I'm glad you approve! Your further thoughts in this regard deserve comments, too...

Regulus was definiteley a marker, as it's name implies and the leader of the four "royal" cornerstone stars (with Antares, Fomalhaut and Alebaran), which later came to mark the four "fixed"signs. One also feels that the first segment should be ruled by the Sun.

Personally, I would think of setting Regulus at 15? Leo (around 0 AD, from where it has since either moved or not, depending on whether you look at the tropical or the sidereal zodiac). The royal star Regulus in the centre of Leo is also reminiscent of the Sun ruling this sign!

I'm not sure if somebody suggested exactly this before?

0? Leo is also the start of one the three (out of 27) Indian nakshatra which conventionally start at 0? of one of the 12 signs (the others are Aries and Sagittarius).

But the 0 Leo / 0 Magha overlay might suggest that the fitting of the 27 nakshatra into the 12 signs, which has been contested as an awkward compromise, might be appropriate - not firstly because of the perfect fit in Aries, but rather that in Leo.

Interesting... only three out of 27 nakshatra start at 0? of a sign, and they indicate * exactly * what could be called the three ways to organize the Zodiac! Namely around:
- the cardinal cross (seasonal scheme; Aries first);
- the fixed cross (domicile scheme, Leo first);
- the mutable cross (uncommon scheme; Sagittarius first; possibly interesting in the light of experiments in sidereal astrology setting 0? Sagittarius at the Galactic Centre?)

Though rulership of Magha, the 0? Leo nakshatra, is conventionally given to Ketu, the south node, while Krittika/Peiades, which straddles 0? Taurus, is ruled by the Sun, and was definitely considered the first of the series in the past - so the plot thickens!

Which nakshatra is given to Rahu?

It's also interesting to note that a 9th harmonic starting at Taurus (which is what Fagan proposed with his novien) also makes 0? Leo in natal fall at 0? Leo in the H9. So perhaps all harmonics "should" be calculated from Leo...

Could you elaborate this funny H9 thing a little for somebody who doesn't have all that much experience with harmonics?

Michael wrote:

For example, in ancient Greek star catalogues, Leo is the first constellation. This constellation is marked by prominent Regulus which stands at a 90? angle to the Aldebaran-Antares axis and was himself one of the four "pillar stars" of the ancients.

Michael, can you give a reference for those star catalogues?

You do know that if Aldebaran is at 15 degrees of Taurus, that places Regulus at 5 degrees of Leo? (Regulus was never in the center of sidereal Leo.)

If you are looking for an alternative place for the beginning of the zodiac, Leo could be your first choice also regarding the order of the traditional rulership scheme. The number 1 certainly behoves the Sun!

So (just to be sure), you're saying that only Aries and Leo would qualify to be associated with number one?

Would you then align the rest of the numbers following Leo: Virgo 2, Libra 3, and so on?

Can we agree on a source for number symbolism?

Michael
H9 means the 9th harmonic chart, the same as the Indian navamsa: each sign is divided into 9 equal parts and apportioned to to each of the signs in turn, so the 9th H goes round the 12 signs 9 times in 360?. This is really, as far as I can see, the only practical area where it matters, sidereally, which sign is considered "first". If you start counting from Aries, 0?-3?20' Aries and also Leo and Sg will come up as Aries. If you start counting from 0? Leo = Leo, then vice versa, etc.

I don't think we should expect a star to be precisely on a significant degree, and certainly not Regulus at 15 Leo, which is way out from all the main ayanamsas. The stars are rough visual markers, not definers, the zodiac must be a coherent harmonic structure or we might as well pack up and go home. I'd place Regulus around 6? Leo.

To be precise, I'd say 6?29' today ("fixed" stars each have their own very slight proper movement over the millenia). I agree with Th?r?se that Krishnamurti is the best of the well-known ayanamsas, though I find "Babylon Kugler III" closer still, and myself use the intersection galactic equator/ecliptic, with these galactic nodes at 6?40 Sg and Gem (6?40 Sg is the precise middle of the nakshatra Mula, "the root"). That gives a VP today at 6Pi26'54 (ayanamsa of 23?33'06"). But I'm not trying to convert anyone, Krishnamurti is close, and tried and tested by some very good critically-minded astrologers like Richard Houck, Martin Gansten... and Th?r?se, with far more experience than me.

Because of my (limited) experience with the Krushna ashatakavarga method, where the "natural significators" for the houses correspond to the rulership sequence starting as if Scorpio was 1 (I found that it seems to work), I think the best option for a "natural first" is Scorpio. In ancient semitic cultures the day was usually considered to start at nightfall. So when night falls and Scorpio rises, Taurus sets and Regulus culminates, with the Saturn ruled signs governing the subterranean houses 3 and 4. That looks like quite a neat arrangement to me, quite "natural"; it would have happened around the spring equinox about 4000 years ago.

In practice, for the H9, this is the same as Fagan's novien, since when 0 Scorpio gives 0 Scorpio in H9, so also 0 Tau gives 0 Tau (the fixed cross /domicile scheme you referred to). I'd have to try with other harmonics, such as the 5th or 7th, and see whether Scorpio does indeed give better results than Tau or Leo or Aqu. This will be difficult because the traditions as to how those harmonics are to be interpreted is scarcer than for the 9th.

Graham

Therese wrote:

Michael, can you give a reference for those star catalogues?

Franz Boll: Aus der Offenbarung Johannis, Teubner, Leipzig/Berlin 1914, p. 37. Boll doesn't name any particular star catalogues but makes a general statement concerning them.

Therese wrote:

You do know that if Aldebaran is at 15 degrees of Taurus, that places Regulus at 5 degrees of Leo? (Regulus was never in the center of sidereal Leo.)

Graham wrote:

I don't think we should expect a star to be precisely on a significant degree, and certainly not Regulus at 15 Leo, which is way out from all the main ayanamsas.

Well, what I suggested is a scheme that directly reflects the domicile schematic and would be oriented on Regulus rather than on Aldebaran-Antares. But I don't blame you for finding this idea too radical. It was just a thougt, really. (Or it ma be the the general practice in a hundred years from now. )

Therese wrote:

So (just to be sure), you're saying that only Aries and Leo would qualify to be associated with number one?

I would never state this dogmatically. For one thing, I suggest myself that 0? Sag could be another equally valid starting point for the zodiac.

But more importantly, I got careful about making absolute statements. Nearly four decades of studying the occult sciences have taught me that there are usually various (and sometimes new) ways that one can look at such things.

Therese wrote:

Would you then align the rest of the numbers following Leo: Virgo 2, Libra 3, and so on?

That would be the logical consequence.

Graham, thanks for your explication of H9 etc. I'm planning to look into harmonics more in the future.

Michael

Is there any website where I can look into numbers and astrology? All I can find so far is just stuff about people's birth number. I don't know if that has anything to do with the numbers and the zodiac signs.

And does this reflect on the houses too?

I would never state this dogmatically. For one thing, I suggest myself that 0? Sag could be another equally valid starting point for the zodiac.

But more importantly, I got careful about making absolute statements. Nearly four decades of studying the occult sciences have taught me that there are usually various (and sometimes new) ways that one can look at such things.

That's interesting. I was born only a few degrees before the galactic center. By that system my Sun would be in the last degrees in Scorpio.

Anyway, the order the signs appear in and their houses (I guess) change depending on where the starting point is. That's clearly significant.

Regarding astrological signs and numbers, from my web site:

Number symbolism plays a key role in defining the sidereal signs. Since Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, the numeral One relates to Aries. One has always had a relationship to the unmanifested, that is in the metaphysical sense, Spirit, the unifying principle behind the visible world. In the more practical sense, One relates to what is what has not yet grown and flowered into manifestation, what could be called 'the seed state.' This meaning harmonizes with the symbolism of the Ram and Pluto as a possible co-ruler of Aries.

THE RAM AND PLUTO
In Your Character in the Zodiac Rupert Gleadow has some amusing words about the characteristics of rams. He comments that he consulted a Dorset shepherd, who remarked that rams "are very nearly as sheepish as sheep!" Gleadow also notes that the Ram was not part of the early Babylonian zodiac, but came instead from Egypt.

The Ram was the sacred animal of the god Amun, ?who was originally the Hidden One, that is to say the Unknown Force?an expression which might mean either the life-force or the Most High God?for the universal God was known in Egypt and India....? (Gleadow, p. 44)

Pluto: Called Hades in ancient Greece, this brother of Zeus was given the portion of the underworld as his domain. The one-eyed cyclops (an interesting reference to the numeral One?Aries is the first sign of the zodiac) presented Hades with the cap of invisibility, a symbol that his realm was not visible to mortal eyes...(etc.)
Also: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 9&start=30

Number two:
Taurus, the second sign of the zodiac, is the first of the even numbered signs. Number two has always symbolized duality, the division of the whole, or Spirit manifesting in creation. Thus we have the first of the even or female signs, the feminine aspect being nature itself throughout metaphysical writings. The symbolism of Taurus follows directly from the singleness and unity of Aries and number One. In Taurus seeds of Aries here sprout into young and vigorous plants of thought.

Number three:
Three is the basis of the four triads in the zodiac. There is a harmony within each triad of signs. Three?s most descriptive symbol is a triangle, representing symmetry and balance. The concept of unity inherent in Gemini and number three is alive and well in Hindu astrology, where Gemini is a united pair: man and woman. In Greek mythology the Gemini twins, Castor and Pollux were inseparable. The concern for balance can manifest as a special interest in health and purity, a desire to act in harmony with nature.

Copyright 2004: Partial notes from http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Very important:

PYTHAGOREAN VIEWS ON NUMBERS

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/nop/nop05.htm

From the same site: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/nop/nop04.htm

Intuitive knowledge was referred to the Monad type.

Reason and causation ? ? Dyad type.

Imagination (form or rupa) ? ? Triad type.

Sensation of material objects ? ? Tetrad type

Th?r?se wrote:

Since Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, the numeral One relates to Aries.

And because it relates to the numeral 1, it's the first sign of the zodiac? You can't get away with circular reasoning!

This is the whole problem with the "Aries is first" idea. It WAS the first in seasonal terms 2000 years ago, if you accept the spring equinox as the beginning of the year, as astrologers did (at least in the Hellenistic tradition, I don't know about China etc, and India has clearly drawn heavily on the Greeks). So it WAS a prefectly reasonable place to start the cycle. But otherwise, there's no real symbolic or structural reason to consider it first.

Graham

Hi Graham,

This is an interesting thread and I would like to contribute. However, reading your posts above, its often unclear when & who you are quoting. Any chance you could put all those quotes in quote boxes and list the poster above?

Its would certainly make this thread more reader friendly.

Thanks

Mark